So far, you haven’t mentioned the evidence I presented which shows ICJ is not included as a means agreed by two countries to solve the disputes. If you are right, why do you think such evidence exists?
One more thing, if there was an agreement by both governments to settle this matter(?) via ICJ, please tell when and how it was made?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Treaty has nothing to do with it. Please state which section it violates.
Did I say the statement by Japanese government you cited has something to do with 1965 Treaty? No, I didn’t. What I meant was Japanese attempt to take Dokdo conflict to ICJ violates Korea-Japan Treaty.
I think you are confused. The special agreement I referred to is linked below. Please read and understand
Why don’t you explain “the special agreement” in your own words if you refute me? You agree the special agreement you referred to has nothing to do with Korea-Japan Treaty, don’t you? That’s what matters.
I don't think so. They initiated based on the “Exchange of notes constituting an agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning the settlement of disputes" executed on June 22, 1965
It doesn’t matter how you think. The fact Japanese people should know is Japanese government in 1965 agreed to not use ICJ in solving disputes between Korea and Japan.
I think the problem with you basically is that you cannot comprehend the entire text which based on my experience, is typical of Korean's counterargument. I know it’s your typical excuse when it’s impossible for you to refute Korean argument any more.
The said document is linked again, below.
Let me translate what your link says about the way to solve the disputes between Korea and Japan.
“The governments of the two countries settle disputes through diplomatic channels except for the cases with separate agreements and when a dispute cannot be settled through diplomatic channels, both governments would seek resolution through mediation according to the procedures to be agreed on by the two parties.”
In this official document, ICJ is not included as a means agreed by two countries to solve the disputes as Mr. Matsusmote stated and Asahi Newspaper reported in 1965.
Mr. Matsusmote : Japan sees there’s a dispute over Takeshima and Korea concludes it’s Korean territory. (Japanese) Government’s explanation it can be solved by a meditation is a scam.
Asahi Newspaper : In regard to Dokdo, Japan insisted the referral to ICJ, but changed to the position of solving through the modification and intercession by a third country and through the diplomatic channel which is one level below due to the strong objection by Korea.
If you continue being obstinate, I can introduce you more evidence showing Japan agreed not to use ICJ in solving Dokdo dispute in Korea-Japan Treaty.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
??? Japan can't take the issue of Takeshima to ICJ unless Korea agrees to it. This is a no brainer. What is your point, really?
Take a look back at your comment. If you don’t understand my comment, it means you don’t understand what you commented.
As for the statement by Japanese government you cited, it’s nothing but a unilateral Japanese stance on proposal to ICJ, which shows Japan has no intention to comply with what she agreed in 1965 Treaty.
This time it’s a twisting of your own government’s stance or you have a problem with reading comprehension. “a special agreement” your government refers to is a necessary agreement Japan should make with Korea before proceedings to the ICJ, which means Japan is well aware that Korea has no any obligation to accept Japanese proposal to ICJ without a special agreement. In other words, proceeding to ICJ was not an option included in an agreement of 1965 Treaty.
If you don’t accept my exact interpretation for you on “a special agreement”, please explain about when and how that special agreement was made in detail. There's no such a special agreement so far.
As I explained before, your link to MOFA of Japan doesn’t prove Professor Hosaka’s assertion is false and instead it proves Japanese government is trying to violate Korea-Japan agreement by asking Korea to go to ICJ. Japanese proposal to go to ICJ is not a calm, fair and peaceful way both Korean and Japanese governments agreed in 1965.
Let me this time introduce Ashahi Newspaper report which verifies there was no mention of ICJ solution in Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 and I expect you to stop making reckless attempts to deny the fact Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 excluded ICJ from the lists of means to solve Dokdo dispute.
“In regard to Dokdo, Japan insisted the referral to ICJ, but changed to the position of solving through the modification and intercession by a third country and through the diplomatic channel which is one level below due to the strong objection by Korea. ”
Thank you for giving me your feedback. It's a great encouragement to me. I appreciate it.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Theoretically yes; practically no!
“Theoretically yes” means Japan can proceed a claim against China if Japan wants if Japan wants. As you mentioned, everybody knows Japan has no reason to initiate a claim about the ownership of the Senkaku Islands, but it’s different story from “Japan can’t take Senkaku dispute to ICJ” as Mr. OssanAmerica insists. “can’t” and “doesn’t” are not same. If Japan wants to solve the dispute of Senkaku in ICJ, Japan can, but Japan doesn’t want to.
nigelboyAug. 15, 2014 - 12:19AM JST
Nope. Check the date of the document and check the date of when the second offer by the Japanese government to take this to ICJ.
I meant “recognition” that Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ. Was there another recognition Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ before 1962?
Nope. It simply states that unless Korea agrees to a dispute, there is no way to resolve it under legal proceedings.
LOL! “Twisting" is your typical attitude when you find there’s no way out. I was talking about the fact Korea-Japan Treaty didn’t choose ICJ as a means of solving Dokdo dispute. Yes, there’s no way to resolve it under legal proceedings without Korean agreement because Korea and Japan agreed so in 1965. Japan should comply with the Korea-Japan Treaty.
Japanese government knows referring Dokdo issue to ICJ is an obvious violation of Korea-Japan Treaty. No it's not.
Please explain why not. I already explained why Japanese government knows referring Dokdo issue to ICJ is an obvious violation of Korea-Japan Treaty.
But I do recall your fellow gyopo poster claiming that "Japan can't raise the issue of Takeshima after 1965" because of some secret pact. I believe it was a guy named Hosaka who presented it to the Korean media which made news there. That lasted for a few months when Japanese government did in fact request again for the third time.
What’s is your point?
Mr. Hosaka Yuji is not “gyopo”.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Peeping_TomAug. 13, 2014 - 08:04PM JST
Thank you for responding.
This is what I understand:
Japan can initiate Court proceeding against China as a Claimant for solving the dispute on Senkaku lslands. In this case, from Japan’s point of view, it’s to ask the judges to stop the provocation(?) of China on Senkaku Islands because they are Japanese land, not to ask them about the ownership of those. Of course, deliberation on the ownership of those islands would be conducted in the court though.
nigelboyAug. 14, 2014 - 12:33AM JST
Negative. What transpired afterwards is basically the first step in the said document which was to convince Korea to settle this case via ICJ.
It was the first recognition Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ. The next recognition of 1965 was Japan can’t use ICJ card afterwards.
Asahi Newspaper reported what a Japanese politician Mr. Matsusmoto stated on the result of Korea-Japan treaty omitting the mention of ICJ on Oct. 1965.
“Japan sees there’s a dispute over Takeshima and Korea concludes it’s Korean territory. (Japanese) Government’s explanation it can be solved by a meditation is a scam.“
「日本側は 竹島は “紛爭” の中に含まれるといつているが、韓国側は、韓国領土と 断定 しており、 政府が調停で 解決できると說明しているのは、ペテンだ」
Mr. Matsusmote understood ICJ was not the card Japan could use anymore. I wonder what his response about Japanese attempt to drag Dokdo into ICJ today would be if he’s still alive .
Japanese government knows referring Dokdo issue to ICJ is an obvious violation of Korea-Japan Treaty.
And like clockwork, you go on with your "wish" list.
If you feel uneasy with this document, think as you like that the said document was not secret or whatever. It doesn’t make any difference.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
This document? No
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
zichiAug. 12, 2014 - 04:36AM JST
I think the status of Claimant/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent are not fixed both in domestic and international courts. It can be changed according to the nature of the claim. In case of Senkaku, Japan can be a claimant.
Japan sees China is a military threat to Japan as much as Japan feels the need to alter the law. Therefore, Japan can work as a Claimant/Plaintiff if Japan wants to solve the tention in ICJ.
I don’t know much about the law, but from comments of my link above, I think the definition of Claimant/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent provided by Peeping_TomAug doesn’t apply to all cases. If you have a different opinion, I welcome.
nigelboyAug. 13, 2014 - 12:39PM JST
There isn't anything 'secret' about this document for the Declaration that Japan signed is for public viewing. We know when the dispute started. We also know that Japan has asked Korea to settle this matter via ICJ so the logical method is a special agreement
Don’t mislead This document had kept secret until when Japanese government disclosed by the order of the court. There more Japanese secret documents related to Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 which Japan refused to open for the reason that "put Japan at a disadvantage in future negotiations with South Korea and North Korea.“
“Eight years ago, the South Korean government released its diplomatic files pertinent to the negotiations of the 1965 treaty. But since Seoul's interpretation of the Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation has remained at odds with Tokyo's, the citizens group demanded disclosure of the government’s documents to find out how the Japanese side negotiated the agreement.
The official position of the Foreign Ministry is that in principle, diplomatic documents are to be disclosed after a 30-year waiting period. However, the ministry has been anything but willing to abide by this principle.
The ministry's stated reason is that disclosure of the documents in question would "put Japan at a disadvantage in future negotiations with South Korea and North Korea.“
<http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201311200033 >. .
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
nigelboyAug. 12, 2014 - 12:40AM JST
It basically concludes that there needs to be a special agreement in place for both parties for the case to be presented to ICJ.
That conclusion has no relevance to learning Japan knew Dokdo issue was not included in the category of dispute... Was there any action taken to utilize U.N. charters and ICJ charters afterwards? After 3 years of this recognition, Japan agreed to use other means than ICJ. Actually, Japan didn’t make any proposal for ICJ until 2012 after 1965. Japanese government knew exactly Japan can’t drag Korea into ICJ.
This isn't news worthy unless you omit this page and twist the footnote as you and the Korean media
You are desperate to downplay the news of Japanese secret document which is detriment to Japanese position on ICJ.
Your quote again, sir.
It was a question and you concluded as if I said so. It’s definitely twisting of my comment. You should have given your own answer such as “No. Japan had no intention to conceal its false claim over Dokdo by keeping Korea to go to ICJ.” and explain the reason. Jumping to the conclusion based on your own assumption is a twist.
Your links are simply "wishing" that Meiji government thought Takeshima belonged to Korea.
Show me an evidence. It’s surprising you twist your country’s own official document. If it was wished so, was Dokdo then a Japanese land or terra nullius?
OssanAmericaAug. 12, 2014 - 02:36AM JST
Japan can not bring a claim against itself. Nor can it bring a claim on behalf of another country.
Going to ICJ with Senkaku dispute does not necessarily mean Japan claims against Japan or on behalf of China. As far as I know, if Japan has a complain, Japan can bring a claim to ICJ. At least, Japan can suggest China to go to ICJ.
The following link shows examples implying Japan can take Senkaku dispute to the ICJ, but Japan doesn’t. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tIwg91rrtI0bR2xs_rp3EhN9irnd8T_mbBA8fCs-nRo/edit
Do you know the difference between a Plaintiff and a Defendant?
Why don’t you ask those who sugges the idea of Japan’s taking Senkaku issue in my link above?
Yes it is. Because unless that evidence is submitted before a Court of Law, you don't know if it's "valid" or not. You are just calling it valid to support your position.
Thus, it means you are not sure Japanese evidence is valid or not. Then, you’d better stop pretending Japan has a valid claim over its neighbor’s land before going to ICJ.
Someone who doesn't understand legal matters obviously.
I tink the people in my link are in better positions than you are in understanding the legal matters.
The United States still think so. However, that the U.S. considers South Korea;s occupation to be illegal and that it should be settled at the ICJ is clea
Without any evidence? Making a groundless assertion makes all of your claim unreliable.
Groundless? Did you not read the Van Fleet Report statement?
You don’t need to cite an invalid and out-dated Van Fleet’s statement again. Read you comment again. You said “considers” not “considered”. US the only signatory of the Allied Powers supported Japanese false claim is not the same country as 60 years ago in terms of Dokdo issue. US knows there’s no any interests for them in siding Japanese claim on Dokdo.
What do you think a decision by the International Court of Justice would be? South Korea is in violation of that 1965 clause by continuing to SHAMELESSLY refuse to settle the dispute at the ICJ.
It seem you need to study "Exchange of Official Document for the Settlement of Disputes“ defined in Korea-Japan treaty which verifies Japanese submission of the Dokdo issue to the ICJ violates the treaty. My comments continues in the link below. https://docs.google.com/document/d/15QHhj2vh0cdhadFR6LwYTNW4u4tpxW6rC0WTI5PQ-Io/edit
LeChatBotteAug. 12, 2014 - 02:41AM JST
I respect your backing Japan’s position even though you treat all of my comments as assumption.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
LeChatBotteAug. 11, 2014 - 04:01AM JST
First of all, I forgot to link the Japanese official documents excluding Dokdo from Japan and Korean exercising sovereignty over Dokdo in the previous post.
http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/01/japan-has-nothing-to-do-with-ulleongdo.html http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/hos-takeshimaulleongdo-and.html http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/12/matsushimapresent-takeshima-doesnt.html http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/02/korea-placed-dokdo-under-jurisdition-of.html
Which assumption you indicate and why? I said I welcome any opinion different from mine. I accept different opinions, and just refute them if I need to, which is not an inability to consider others have different opinions.
most of the discussions I've had with Korean or Chinese people following their governments' guidelines for online discussions
Are you well aware of Korean or Chinese government’s guidelines? How about Japanese guideline? It seems you believe Japanese claim is more valid without knowing exactly how Japanese people are guided by their government. Again, I tell the facts based on the evidence and I sometimes make assumptions, but they are also based on the facts, not my own imagination.
Thank you for sharing your own assumption based on an article. I already read that article which, I think, written relatively in objective manner. Yes, it’s scaring to think a nation loses its land ruled for 60 years. Reasonable people might think no politicians on earth let that happen. I think you found the answer to your assumption Korea is afraid to go to ICJ in this article.
And indeed, Takeshima was not "returned" to Korea like you said (see OssanAmerica's previous post)
If Korea owner doesn’t take Dokdo, who can? Are you talking about Van Fleet’s statement? I responded to it. Please show any evidence the Allied Powers, the signatories of SF Treaty, except U.S. said Dokdo was Japanese land then. Have you ever heard of SCAPIN 677 which separated Dokdo from Japan? That’s the agreement of the Allied Powers.
nigelboyAug. 11, 2014 - 04:25AM JST
I read entire document in the link. I don’t need quote all of them. What matters is Japanese document said Dokdo was not included in the category of dispute in Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ..... (わが国の强制管轄權受諾宣言は、裁判所付託お 義務的と 認める紛爭お 「宣言の 日付以後の 事態又は 事實に関して, 同日以後に發生する全ての紛爭に」限定しているから，わが国が竹島問題お同宣言 にいる紛爭のカテゴリーに 含まれると解することはできないと 考えられる)
And one more thing, Korean media didn’t twist as you misled.
taking a leap of faith that "to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima/Dokdo is false" is a classic example of how the Korean counterparts have debated this issue for years
I didn’t say “Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ=to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima/Dokdo is false”. Did I? You are one of the Japanese who don’t care twisting what their counterparts say on Dokdo issue.
As LeChatBotte indicated above, what you are doing here is "elevating your assumptions". When done carelessly, you are merely "wishing"
I have stuck to the facts and evidence related to the subjects in the discussion. What you have to do is refuting my comments likewise. You don’t need to attack me in this way if you don’t expect me to agree with what you say. I didn’t make such assumptions.
OssanAmericaAUG. 11, 2014 - 08:02AM JST
Individuals and nations alike need to have reasons before going to court. If Korea doesn’t have reasons and as long as there’s no lawful obligation to go to ICJ, it’s not something to be criticized especially by Japan.
If Japan is a civilized nation enough to try to settle disputes by the rule of law, Why doesn’t Japan attempt to refer the Senkaku issue to the ICJ? It looks Senkaku issue looks more disputable than Dokdo issue.
Are you incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in claiming that you are right and all the evidence is in your favor, but at the same time refusing to present that evidence at the ICJ and putting the issue to bed for good? This is what we call "shameless".
Having valid evidence and refusing to present them in the court are not hypocritical.They are different stories. Besides, I said personally I don’t mind if Korea decides to go to the ICJ. From the beginning, I focused on subjct of the evidence of Japanese claim. The obvious hypocrisy is Japanese different manner on territorial disputes. Someone well described it as follows:
“Japan is more than happy to call for the ICJ when the other country is in possession of the disputed territory (e.g. Korea) but when they possess the territory, they have a different view on the merits of international adjudication.Hypocritical? Yes. Surprising? No.” (From http://opiniojuris.org/2012/09/20/why-wont-japan-send-the-senkakudiaoyu-islands-dispute-to-the-icj/)
It is evidence that Japan is not the only country that thinks South Korea's occupation of he Liancourt Rocks is illegal
Which country thinks South Korea's occupation of he Liancourt Rocks is illegal now? I mean “now”.
However, that the U.S. considers South Korea;s occupation to be illegal and that it should be settled at the ICJ is clear
Don’t make a groundless assertion. Currently, U.S. officially maintains neutral. Can you show any evidence U.S. considers it should be settled at the ICJ?
That South Korea acted illegally and counter to the U.S. position, and continues to refuse to settle at the ICJ exposes the "shameless: nature of that country,
I remind you Korea-Japan treaty of 1965 didn’t mention ICJ solution for any possible dispute between the two countries and listed only "diplomatic settlement" or "mediation by a third party" as a means of solving the disputes. In spite of this agreement, Japan keeps asking Korea to go to ICJ giving an impression to the international community that Korea doesn’t comply with the law, which is very shameless. As Japanese secret document of 1962 stated, Japan has not legal ground to drag Korea into ICJ.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
tinawatanabeAUG. 10, 2014 - 10:05AM JST
This is the tricky part because "the good" means completely deferent between the two countries. For Koreans, it means Japan listens to whatever Koreans demand as Japan has been until recently.
Could you tell me what demands Korea made and what and how Japan has done?
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Returned? SKorea stole the Takeshima and killed more than 30 Japanese fishermen there in 1952.
Korea stole Dokdo from whom? Dokdo was the Korean land Imperial Japan took by greed in 1905 in the course of colonizing Korea. It’s a fact as shown in a map by Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department under the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office. <http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/evidence3-japanese-incorporation-of.html
Korea didn’t kill the Japanese fishermen to steal Dokdo. It was a Korean choice to stop the Japanese fishermen trespassing on Korean land.
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
tinawatanabeAug. 08, 2014 - 11:52PM JST
Your questions are not worth my time. I hope the majority of Japanese don’t have a historical view like you and I’m sorry to hear such a crude racist expression.
OssanAmericaAug. 09, 2014 - 12:19AM JST
Why is it shameless Korea doesn’t accept Japanese proposal? Did Korea agree to accept it and break that agreement? Did ICJ order Korea to accept Japanese proposal and Korea refuse? Korean stance on ICJ does nothing wrong with the international rule. It’s definitely shameless Japan claims Korean land based on the falsehood and tries to drag Korea into ICJ. Be reminded Korea-Japan treaty of 1965 didn’t mention ICJ solution for any possible dispute between the two countries and listed only "diplomatic settlement" or "mediation by a third party" as a means of solving the disputes.
As to the statement of Van Fleet, is it the evidence Dokdo is Japanese land or what?
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated in 1953:
“Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Postsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan, and despite our participation in Postdam and treaty and action under administrative agreement, it does not rpt not necessarily follow US automatically responsible for settling or intervening in Japan's international disputes, territorial or otherwise, arised from peace treaty. US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty.”
U.S. dropped support for Japanese claim long time. Isn’t it time for Japan to stop depending on what U.S. said as one of the signatories of SF Treaty 60 years ago?
nigelboyAug. 09, 2014 - 12:20AM JST
I found out it’s you who twist what Korean media say. You intentionally skip the main point of the document and blame that Korean media twist. The main point is this :
“It can be said our country shouldn’t interpret Dokdo issue can be included in the category of disputes in Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ because the disputes that Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction recognize as mandatory submission to the court limits to the disputes arose after the date of Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction.”(わが国の强制管轄權受諾宣言は、裁判所付託お 義務的と 認める紛爭お 「宣言の 日付以後の 事態又は 事實に関して, 同日以後に發生する全ての紛爭に」限定しているから，わが国が竹島問題お同宣言 にいる紛爭のカテゴリーに 含まれると 解することはできないと 考えられる)
In other words, Japanese clarified in 1962 Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to the court because it was 1952 when Korea declared sovereignty over neighboring seas before Japan accepted compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in 1958. Japanese secret document of 1962 is worth raving of Korea media
Japan agreed to list "diplomatic settlement" or "mediation by a third party" as possible solutions to any dispute between the two countries, without mentioning the ICJ in Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965. It’s likely Japan did so based on the recognition of 1962.
In conclusion, it’s shameless Japan demands Korea for the ICJ rule on Dokdo.
If Korea was deprived of diplomacy right by Japan, it means Korea was under control of Japan. If you think Korean protest was important, have you ever thought of the reasons why Japanese government of 1905 didn't let Korea know about Japanese action at the time of incorporating Dokdo?
1899 大韓地誌 states the eastern boundary of Korea at a limit of 130 degrees 35 minues. 1906 July 13, "Hwangseong Shinmun" confirms the boundary of Uldo County exludes Takeshima.
It’s an empty refutation. If you want, I can give you the reasons. Instead, let me introduce you what a Japanese history scholar Hibatakke Sekko wrote in his article carried in a Japanese journal “歷史地理 (Historical Geography)” in 1930 when Korea was under colonization of Japan.
“Takeshima and Ulleungdo belong to Gangwon Province of Korea, and they constitute the eastern limit of Korea.” ”
LeChatBotteAug. 09, 2014 - 01:08AM JST
I’m not a historian, either. Finding flaws of Japanese logic on Dokdo doesn’t require to be a historian. The real facts are very simple to understand, but Japanese government skillfully twist them.
I checked the assumptions and conclusion you said I made . One is a fact, not my own thinking and the other one is what I think but it’s based on reasonable judgements. Japan says “Dokd is an inherent part of territory of Japan.” because Japan established the sovereignty over Dokdo by mid-17th century and mention through Japanese fishermen’s dropping by in Dokdo on the way to Ulleongdo. Go to MOFA homepage of Japan and check it yourself. Japanese historical documents said Dokdo was not Japanese land no matter what the Japanese fishermen did in Dokdo in 1969s and reconfirm it in 1870 and 1877. This is my assumption : Japanese government might hope those documents disappear.
As to “it would be so obvious Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo would be easily turned out to be illegal because Dokdo was Korean land then”, that is the possible reason why Japan uses the theory of inherent land which can be easily proven to be false by Japanese official documents. If somebody thinks I’m wrong, I welcome the other opinions about why Japanese government is saying Dokdo is Japanese inherent part in spite of Edo and Meiji governments exclusion of Dokdo from Japanese land.
When Japan incorporated, Korea was exercising sovereignty over Dokdo. From Japanese side, Japanese Meiji government’s document stated “Regarding the islands in question, they are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko (1696) after the entry of the Koreans into the island.” The islands in question indicate Ulleongdo and Dokdo.
Has Korea said Korea is afraid of going to ICJ? It’s your assumption, right? Korea has no reason to ask the judge to decide whether Dokdo is Korean land or not because Korean sovereignty over Dokdo is not in question and Korea has no obligation to accept Japan’s proposal. Dokdo is historically Korean land which was stolen by Imperial Japan and returned to Korea. Personally, I think it would be OK if Korea decides to go to ICJ, but I respect Korean government’s position on ICJ and hope Japan does, too.
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
LeChatBotteAug. 08, 2014 - 06:12AM JST
It seems you don’t know much about Japanese logic on Dokdo. When Japan says “Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan.”, it means it was Japanese land even before Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo. In 1905, Japanese cabinet decided to incorporate Dokdo on the pretext of "terra nullius". Definitely, Japanese government then didn’t say Dokdo was Japanese inherent land because there were Japanese official records saying Dokdo was not a Japanese land. Shamelessly, the current Japanese government claims both at the same time. Isn’t it clear it’s a contradiction? Why can’t Japan give up the theory of inherent land? If Japan discards it, it would be so obvious Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo would be easily turned out to be illegal because Dokdo was Korean land then. There’s a fact you should know. There was no any recognition by the International Community Dokdo was"terra nullius" at the time of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo. Japan incorporated it in a very clandestine manner. The way of Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was quite different from that of Japanese incorporation of other lands. It’s a long story to write here. I link here. <http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo.html > On the matter of claiming sovereignty over Dokdo, Japanese government is never honest. That’s what Japanese citizens should know.
tinawatanabeAug. 07, 2014 - 11:27PM JST
If you want I think I can investigate the names of Japanese fishermen who were killed by Koreans. Do you think you can give me the names of the countless number of Koreans, and how they were killed because Koreans always accuse Japan without concrete evidence.
Why does the names matter? Imperial Japan’s cruelty towards Koreans are uncomparable to what Korean government did to 44 Japanese fishermen to protect Korea. What I want to say is Japanese shouldn’t behave as if they are the victims.
nigelboyAug. 08, 2014 - 12:23AM JST
I disagree for it's the other way around for it's the Korean government who has been quick to react to anything Japan no matter how minor they are.
You admit Japanese government is quick to react anything Korea no matter how minor they are. Then, there should be Japanese government's reaction if Korean media twisted the interpreatation of Japan's secret document and make Japan look shameless.
What the Korean media focused on was the last part (footnote, basically) which it states that even though Japan has signed the declaration recognizing the court as compulsory, it may be difficult to bring forth even if Korea signed the same document based on the date. (1958).
It clearly shows Japanese government then realized they couldn take Dokdo issue to ICJ and besides, there was no any mention of ICJ in relation to Dokdo issue even in the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965. Thus there’s nothing wrong with Korean refuse to go to ICJ today. Then, why does Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ and try to make Korea look bad? Is it a means to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Dokdo is false?
And that seems to be the fundamental problem within the Korean population when discussing such matters because you have very little choice but to put faith in the Korean media that reported this nonsense.
Can you read Korean and know exactly what Korean media say without depending on the other sources? If you do, that’s great. I know Japanese a little. If I’m able to read Japanese perfectly, it would be very helpful to find out how some Japanese people twist and lie about Dokdo issue.
your insistence that Japanese government doesn't respond to this ridiculous Korean media, therefore she is not "reliable" is simply your attempt at shifting goal posts.
It’s because so many times I have witnessed there are some Japanese who willingly twist and sometimes lie about the matters of Dokdo in favor of Korea.
nigelboyAug. 08, 2014 - 06:26AM JST
That would be impossible since Joseon Dynasty had an "empty island" policy (no Koreans were allowed to live on the islands) which lasted for 460 years which was finally lifted in 1882.
You are wrong. Korean "empty island" policy doesn’t mean Korea abandoned those islands and allolwed Japan took them. Japanese document “竹島版圖所屬考” well explains those islands were still Korean land in spite of an "empty island" policy. “尋テ｢毅宗十三年王聞鬱陵島地廣土肥可以居民遣溟州道監倉金柔立往視柔立回秦云島中有村落基趾七所多生柴胡藁本石南草於是移東郡民以實之後廔爲風濤所蕩覆舟因還其民云々｣ 然レハ當時其民ヲ移シ其地ヲ空フセシ者ノ如シ。毅宗十三年ハ我二條帝ノ平治元年ニシテ本年辛巳ヲ距ル事七百二十二年ナリ。此七百二十二年前此島高麗ニ屬スル三證ナリ”
nigelboyAug. 08, 2014 - 09:27AM JST
Do you want to say Korea had power to protest the Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 because Japan annexed Korea in 1910? If so, let me tell you this. It was 1910 when Japan officially annexed Korea, but Japan started to deprive Korea of diplomatic right in 1904 and a Japanese Resident-General was deployed to Korea in 1905. Most importantly, Korea could learn of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo one year after in 1906 by a verbal notification of officials of Shimane Prefecture who unexpectedly visited Ulleongdo. Of course, Korea protested even though it couldn’t reach Japanese government. You’d better stop saying Korea could protest if she wanted because Korea was a free country then.
therougouAug. 08, 2014 - 11:05AM JST
Existence of individual Japanese maps that exclude these rocks doesn't really mean anything if they validly claimed the islands by international law.
The existence of Japanese maps that exclude these rocks proves Japanese claim Dokdo is Japanese inherent part is false and the existence of Japanese including Dokdo as Korean land proves Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal undert the international law. There’s no way to defend Japanese false logic on Dokdo.
Japan obtained Takeshima lawfully, and then Korea stole it. But don't worry, Japanese don't hate Koreans for it. Its history
If Japanese know the real history, not the fake one, especially about Dokdo, they would be ashamed of what their government is doing now.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
therougouAug. 07, 2014 - 05:10PM JST
You do realize that no Japanese except some nutcases even care about those rocks, right? In Japan, those who care about Dokdo are called nutcases? Then, Japanese government is encouraging more and more Japanese including the young children to be nutcases. Someday in the future, Japan would be a weird country with full of nutcases. It would be sad for Korea to have a neighboring country like this.
You will have no need for tears when you come to realize that Japan doesn't hate Korea for taking Takeshima, rather they just think Koreans are a little strange for defending it like their lives depend on it. I don’t care Japan does or doesn't hate Korea. I just hope Japan stop false claim over its neighbor’s land. As to the Koreans who defend Dokdo like their lives depend on it, what is your criteria defining such Koreans?
The fact is Korea has no maps showing Takeshima as part of Korea, so they try to find 1 or 2 random Japanese maps that may or may not indicate it is part of Korea. The fact that it is not on any Korean maps at all pretty much sums up Korea's claim to the islands.
If you think the old maps matter, what do you think about the fact Japan has no accurate maps showing Dokdo as part of Japan? Japan has maps including Dokdo, but none of them shows only Dokdo, not along with Ulleongdo, as part of Japan. There are not only 1 or 2 Japanese maps indicate Dokdo is part of Korea. There are much more than that. Maps of Korea showing Dokdo as part of Korea is here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aYqXZcMrtYn1Lue1vUjBN3DPNoP303V0TOpAqmbEnU/edit
tinawatanabeAug. 07, 2014 - 09:20PM JST
SKorea killed and injured 44 Japanese fishermen when they took Takeshima in 1952. I don't think Japanese like it. Imperial Japan killed the countless number of Koreans. I’m just curious if you understand some Korean people have a good reason to hate Japan. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate Japan.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
LeChatBotteAug. 07, 2014 - 03:50AM JST
It seems you misunderstood. It was Japan, not Korea, recognized that prior to 1905 those islands were terra nullius. Japan meant Dokdo was nobody’s land and incorporated it. It’s definitely contradictory to Japan’s current claim Dokdo is an inherent part of territory of Japan. If Dokdo was Japan’s an inherent land, why did Japan incorporate it on the basis of terra nullius? Does it make sense? In fact, Japan had never owned Dokdo prior to 1905. Japan’s Edo and Meiji Governments declared Dokdo was not Japanese land. Korea didn’t annex Dokdo in 1952. Dokdo was given to its original owner according to the Postdam Declaration which carried out Cairo Declaration stipulating "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed" How can I prove Dokdo was the land taken by Japan’s greed? See <http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/evidence3-japanese-incorporation-of.html
nigelboyAug. 07, 2014 - 03:59AM JST
I don't think the Japanese government has any reason to retort Korean media/scholars "discovery" that props up now and then. It's a running joke, really. It's simply unfortunate that Korean people are not aware of how much they are embarassing themselves.
Japanese government has been very quick to depend their positions on the matters of Korea-Japan relations no matter how minor they are. This case is not a minor issue. If I don’t see any response from Japanese government like your insistence Korean media twists Japanese government’s document which isn’t helpful to Japan’s ICJ card, it means what you said is not reliable at all.
OssanAmericaAug. 07, 2014 - 04:14AM JST
Read this. It's in English. Saves us both the time, http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com Now why is South Korea afraid to go to the ICJ and shit Japan up for good?
Are you asking me to read all the posts of your link? It’s very time consuming ,isn’t it? I don’t ask you much. Please just show one evidence showing Dokdo is an inherent territory of Japan. Why can’t you? For Japanese, knowing correctly why Dokdo is Japan’s land takes priority over complaining repeatedly why Korea doesn’t accept Japan’s proposal for ICJ.
Sam TrumbullAug. 07, 2014 - 07:44AM JST
Going back and forth about history on this issue is a waste of time.
You are right. I often feel arguing about history on Dokdo issue takes up my time. But the only way Koreans can do against Japanese who wrongly believe Korea illegally took their land and they should take it back is making them see the real truth on the history of Dokdo even though it doesn't work effectively. I feel sad about this.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
OssanAmericaAug. 07, 2014 - 12:31AM JST
I asked first, but you ask for my response to your question without answering my question. Who is wrong? According to your logic, you ignore my question because you are unable to show any evidence explaining why Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan and Dokdo belongs to Japan. Let me tell you the decisive evidence Japan’s claim over Dokdo is false. Japan incorporated Dokdo in 1905 based on terra nullius (Nobody’s territory). However, however Japanese government today claims Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan. What a contradictory! Japan dare to distort its own history for the false claim over Korean land.
virgo98 and MountBlade, do you believe all of what they say? That’s fine. Please pinpoint just one evidence you believe it shows Dokdo is Japan’s land.
nigelboyAug. 07, 2014 - 12:58AM JST
I can’t read Japanese. If Korean media twists Japanese government’s secret document as you say, there must be a Japanese government’s refutation on this. Is there any?
-7 ( +0 / -7 )
OssanAmericaAug. 06, 2014 - 09:19PM JST
What is Japan’s arguments and evidence showing Dokdo is Japanese land? Can you explain? Let me argue this first. If you realize Japanese government’s claim is totally false, you can see the absurdity of Japan’s Japan’s proposal for ICJ and find the answer why S. Korea ignores Japan’s proposal.
FYI, Japan didn’t categorize Dokdo as international dispute as it arose before Japan announced its compulsory jurisdiction over the island in 1958 according to the Japan’s secret document of 1962 related to S.Korea-Japan basic treaty of 1965 which Japanese government reluctantly released.
SamuraiBlueAug. 06, 2014 - 09:43PM JST
I don’t play a poker game. Can you simply show the evidence why Dokdo is Japan’s land?
-10 ( +1 / -11 )
To the supporters for Japan’s claim on Dokdo :
Please present any evidence showing Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan and belongs to Japan. You should be able to explain why Dokdo is Japan’s land before asking Korea to go to ICJ.
-12 ( +1 / -13 )
JoeBigsJun. 26, 2014 - 12:06AM JST
Just because the ROK side didn't mention the Comfort women that doesn't mean they weren't covered by the treaty.
The reason they weren't covered by the treaty is not because ROK didn’t mention. It was non-issue in the treaty.
The moment he signed that treaty he accepted the terms of the agreement. You may try and dance your way out of it, but the proof is in the document that President Park Chung-hee
Who did say President Park Chung-hee didn’t accept the terms of the agreement? I said comfort women was not included in the terms of the agreement.
I understand that you want your nation to claim that the treaty is invalid and try and push for more compensations, but that will not happen. Because if South Korea were to claim that the treaty is invalid then all bets would be off the table and the ROK would be considered untrustworthy. So the only way your side can make the treaty invalid is for Japan to agree with your side. But, that won't happen, ergo your propaganda war.
You misjudge what I said. I didn't suggest I want my government to claim the treaty is invalid and push for more compensatio. What is invalid is Japan’s stance comfort women was settled by the treaty. Has Korean government ever tried to make the treaty invalid by making Japan to agree with Korea? Don’t be upset with what didn’t happen. What Korean government insists is the Treaty didn’t cover the issue of comfort women.
The links are all about the widely known facts about the treaty. There’s no any indication comfort women was settled by the treaty in your links. The money Japan gave to Korea was not free. It was the price for the Japan’s 36 years of harsh colonial rule of Korea. Yes, it was a big money to Korea under poverty then, but that sum can’t cover the immeasurable extent of Japan’s exploitation and Korean sufferings for 36 years. Korea needed the money for economic development and used the money from Japan for it. There’s nothing wrong with it. President Park Jeong-hee‘s government was negligent of its responsibility for the compensation of the victims of forced conscription which was covered by the treaty, but this is Korean domestic matter.
Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 didn’t settle the issue of comfort women. Moreover, the individual right for seeking damages is still effective as Japanese government acknowledged in 1992.
Don’t mislead Korea is greedy for money. Money is not a main issue here. Korea is affordable to give the 54 surviving comfort women the money as much as they want if they ask Korean government for compensation, but it’s Japan that has obligation to compensate them.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
BARENZAME619Jun. 25, 2014 - 03:57PM JST
OK. Japanese government said “the two countries had worked together on the sensitive wording of the apology” or “the statement was product of diplomatic negotiations between Korea and Japan”. Does it make any difference? Japan said Japan would not revise the Statement. Logically, this means currently Japan has no objection with the content of Kono statement no matter whether what happened to the proceeding of the statement. I think you’d better to stick to Kono statement which was based on the research your own government conducted. Kono statement was not made to please Korea. It was an outcome of Japan’s sincere apology on Imperial Japan’s aggression, which was the constructive step for better Japan even though it hurts.
The review was conducted in order to find out "how the Kono Statement was" made. In other words, "to review the making process of the statement" and "to review whether the statement was made at Japan's sole discretion or with any other input/interference from SK".
I found very meaningful statements from the editorial of The Japan Times which I hope Japanese who think “there were false info/misunderstanding/exaggerations, etc” read.
“If the government is to uphold the 1993 statement, as it says it will, then the Abe administration needs to do what the statement says Japan will do and make proactive efforts to settle the long-running dispute, instead of repeatedly attempting to play down the nation’s responsibility for the ordeal of the women forced into wartime sexual slavery.”
“Following the release of the review’s outcome, the Abe administration repeated that it would not change the Kono statement. If that’s the case, then the administration should wholly commit itself to what Japan said in the statement, and seek to repair ties with South Korea that have been strained at least in part by its attempt to question the stance of past Japanese governments on this matter.” < http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/06/25/editorials/stop-undermining-kono-statement/#.U6q_z8uKDIU>
As for the absolute lies you mentioned, it’s pointless to bring it here because Kono statement doesn’t include such information and wasn’t based on such information.
This information include such as; Number of comfort women; How they become comfort women- kidnapped or sold by their parents or voluntarily applied for the job; who recruited them; How were their life at the camp like.
Read Kono carefully. It states “ The Government study has revealed that in many cases they were recruited against their own will, through coaxing, coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments. They lived in misery at comfort stations under a coercive atmosphere.”. It said “IN MANY CASES”, not all cases. Don’t be misled.
What triggered a change of Japanese public opinion is, IMO, all such activities to disgrace Japan as President Pak started tattletale diplomacy and SK ppl started to build statues of comfort women thoughout the U.S.; Japanese reached its limits of patience then.
Asking Japan to face up to the history and is not such an act of disgracing Japan. It’s a shame if someone think it’ disgraceful to face up the history. The world knows Mr. Abe is a revisionist with no inability to face the history. Did you expect President Park stay silent on his historical revisionism? Putting yourself in other’s shoes would help you understand her. Following remark by PM Abe is what made President Park to start to be firm on Japan.
“The definition of what constitutes aggression has yet to be established in academia or in the international community. Things that happened between nations will look differently depending on which side you view them from.”
As statues of comfort women throughout the U.S, why is Japan so upset? What’s wrong with commemorating the comfort women? Japan has set up monuments for the victims of atomic bombings in the US, too. It’s a double standard.
Japanese reached its limits of patience then Please remember there’s limit of patience on Japan’s revisionism among Koreans.
As for my comment about President Pak, I think that, new statement will not be published if President Pak admitted the review is right; Kono Statement was not based on the genuine research, but a product of political trade-off. However, if she does not admit such trade-off and negotiations existed and continue to accuse Japan, PM Abe will take another step, including a new statement which overwrite and delete the old Kono statement.
Wow! It sounds like a threat. Nonsense. Do whatever Japan wants and I’ll enjoy watching. Good luck!
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
JoeBigsJun. 24, 2014 - 10:36PM JST
It is from the heart, I truly hope that all nations would take care of their problems without trying to hide them.
The problems you mentioned can’t be hidden by Korean protest against Japan’s review of Kono statement. Korean government knows it and Koreans are wise enough to know thier government can hide them by protesting Japan. Japan’s attempts to revise history can hide Japanese problems?
The Kono statement was made by Japan and not by Korea, so it is a Japanese issue and one that they want to look into Japan says there was S Korean input on Kono statement. What do you think about it?
In 1965 the ROK accepted the terms of the treaty and were suppose to use a portion of the money they received to help the people affected by the Japanese occupation. The treaty clearly stated that Korea would compensate it's people and Japan would not have to
Please cite the terms of the treaty backing up your comment if you can.
Article 2 of "Agreement on the Settlement of Problem Concerning Property and Claims and on the Economic Cooperation," states “ the problems concerning property rights, and interests of the both nations and their peopleand the claims between both nations and between their nationals , including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan which exist at the time of singing treaty have been completely and ultimately settled. Japan picks out only the words "completely and ultimately settled“, but the contents of this claim doesn’t include the issue of comfort women. The of issue of comfort women was not dealt during the fourteen years (1952-1965) of negotiations, not even once and Japan didn’t admit the existence of comfort women when comfort women became an issue in 1991. It doesn't make sense to say Japan completely compensated for the issue it didn’t even recognize.
There were 8 items of claims negotiated in the talks and comfort women issue was not included. The treaty covered was Koreans who had been conscripted as soldiers or laborers during the colonial period. Korean government paid for them and has never asked Japan for the further compensation for them. Most importantly, 1965 treaty didn’t deprive individual victims of their rights to seek compensation.
In 1992, JP government acknowledged that the iindividual victims still hold the right to seek damages. Shunji Yanai, then chief of the Foreign Ministry’s Treaties Bureau, told an Upper House Budget Committee session on Aug. 27 that " the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty of 1965 had not deprived individual victims of their right to seek damages in domestic legal terms. Shunji Yanai said "(The treaty) only prevents Japanese and South Korean governments from taking up issues as exercise of their diplomatic rights,"
Even though Japan insists comfort women issue was settled by the treaty, the individual right for seeking the compensation is still effective. Treaty of 1965 isn’t that simple as you can vaguely articulate.
Korean government disclosed all records of the proceedings of the treaty even though some were not in favor of Korean position, but Japan refused to disclose them completely. According to Asahi Shimbun, the Foreign Ministry stated reason was that disclosure of the documents in question would put Japan at a disadvantage in future negotiations with South Korea and North Korea.
BARENZAME619Jun. 25, 2014 - 11:10AM JST
Japanese" in my previous comment means the whole country of Japan (=Japanese ppl), not necessarily includes the Japanese government.
What I want to know is the review found all the exaggeration and false information which are fabricated by Korean and Chinese for their propaganda Japanese population deny today. if it is the view of Japanese population, your government must know it. Do you think the reivew team also research what the Japanese population deny?
PM Abe never said he will revise Kono Statement. But it does not mean that he did not find any false information. PM Abe thinks it is not his job to find the truth or to study the history: it it the job of historians/intellectuals. Otherwise, instead of revising it, he can publish a new statement, which I am not sure if happens. It also depends how President Pak will react after she comes back from the trip.
The question is if there was any false information, why doesn’t Japan say there was? The Japanese population is anxious to know it if there was and Korean are, too. Such attitude is understandable? And why should Japan depends on President Pak in announcing the falso information, if any? What is Japan calculating in that case?
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
BARENZAME619Jun. 24, 2014 - 05:23PM JST
What Japanese deny today is all the exaggeration and false information which are fabricated by Korean and Chinese for their propaganda.
As far as I know, the review was to find out the exaggeration and false information of Kono Statement you said. So, did the review team find out them? Definitely, “the two countries had worked together on the sensitive wording of the apology” has no relevance to the exaggeration and false information.
One more thing. Mr. Abe said he would not revise it. He sounds like he found nothing to alter the content of Kono Statement. What do you think about it?
0 ( +4 / -4 )
JoeBigsJun. 24, 2014 - 10:51AM JST
These two countries need to find a new hobby, hey how about taking care of their own nation's problems?
Thank you for your concern about Korean problems no matter whether it is from your heart or not. Yes, Korea has a lot of problems to solve and you should know Japan’s constant attempt to revise its history related to Korea is one of the problems Korea is facing. No matter what Japan tries to do with Kono Statement, it’s not Japan’s own business.
How about Japan? Aren’t there more important issues to address in Japan than reviewing Kono Statement?
South Korea wants Japan to forget about the 1965 Treaty and pay more money. The ROK doesn't want to live up to their end of the treaty and reneged on it the very minute after they got the money from Japan. What better way of achieving this goal than by pressuring Japan internationally.
Please concretely say what money Korean government wants if your intention is not to make Korea look bad.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
bamboo pinkJun. 21, 2014 - 10:12PM JST
when Japan had no force to defend
Defend Dokdo? You misunderstood. At that time, SCAPIN677 separated Japan from Dokdo and SCAPIN1033 prohibited the Japanese nationals to enter the 12-nautical mile seas off Dokdo and approaching Dokdo. However, Koreans were enjoying the sovereignty over Dokdo. Dokdo was not the island Japan had to defend with the use of force.
Korea established a boundary on the sea of japan by force
Are you talking about President’s Ryee’s Line known also as Peace Line? Korea didn’t use the force to establish the Peace Line. What Korea did was an announcement of "Declaration of Sovereignty Over Neighboring Seas". Japanese fishermen‘s violation of SCAPIN 1033 partly led to he President Rhee’s declaration of Korean sovereignty over the waters around the Korean peninsula. Peace Line is almost identical to MacArthur Line of SCAPIN 1033. Dokdo was Korean land which Japan had to renounce after the surrender of WW2. SF Treaty deciding the territory of Japan started with the recognition that Dokdo was Korean land. It was Japan’s aggressive lobbying and U.S. strategic interests that messed up this initial recognition, however President Ryee did the right thing to keep Korean Dokdo from Japan by establishing Peace Line. As to the use of force after the establishment of Peace Line, it was a reasonable self defence against Japanese vessels violating Peace Line.
violating international law
Which international law are you talking about? Was there international law saying a nation’s declaring the sovereignty over its surrounding seas illegal at that time? Please show me if there was. American position on Peace Line which extremely sided with Japan was not an international law. President Ryees declaration had international precedents.
Since then, korea has been illegally occupaying takeshima.
President’ Ryee’s Peace Line was legitimate then and it was abolished in 1965 by an agreement between Korea and Japan. The reason Korea is occupying Dokdo is that Dokdo inherently belonged to Korea.
Japan can't use armed force to take it back due to japanese constitution.
Do you think the use of force is the way Japan can take Dokdo away from Korea? It’s not surprising many people think Japan should keep peace constitution.
Do you think korea doesn't have to accept the offer from japan to settle the dispute "peacefully" over the ilands korea took by killing japanese people?
There’s no dispute related to Dokdo with Japan to settle in ICJ. The peaceful solution to solve the conflict is Japanese sincere reflection that Imperial Japan illegally took Korean Dokdo by greed during the course of colonizing Korea.
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
hachikouJun. 21, 2014 - 05:06PM JST
Is that what you learned from the discussion on Dajokan Order in Japan ? It’s deplorable some Japanese are still believe such a lame logic. Unfortunately, you learned how to distort Dajokan Order, not the truth. In other words, Japanese are desperate to deny Dajokan Order which said Japan had nothing to do with Ulloengdo and Dokdo . I understand Dajokan Order is critically inconvenient for Japan’s claim on Dokdo. Let me tell you the truth.
You deny another island is Dokdo and instead try to make another island Jukdo which is 2.2 km off Ulleongo, which is nonsense. The reasons your claim is wrong is as follows:
Read carefully the inquiry of Ministry of Home Affairs of Japan to Dajokan. It’s said “Regarding the islands in question, they are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko (1696) after the entry of the Koreans into the island. ” In other words, Ministry of Home Affairs concluded Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and another island based on the document of 1696. What happened in 1696? Edo government prohibited the Japanese to go to Ulleongdo and Dokdo after Tottori Han answered those two islands didn’t belong to Japan in 1696. Thus, Takeshima and another island are definitely Ulleongdo and Dokdo. Dajokan just confirmed what Ministry of Home Affairs said that Japan had nothing to do with Ulleongdo and Dokdo.Have you seen the map attached to Dajokan Order? There are two islands named 竹島 and 松島 are depiced in the map. As you said, 竹島 is Ulleongdo and 松島 is Dokdo. Thus, you should admit to claim another island is Jukdo, not Dokdo is very foolish. The map proves anothe island in question is 松島(=Dokdo). There's no Jukdo in the map.
<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rORNE7Ei9ZE/UPcyDmnO_UI/AAAAAAAADgE/o_FHktpVLAM/s1600/%25EA%25B8%25B0%25EC%25A3%25BD%25EB%258F%2584%25EC%2595%25BD%25EB%258F%25841.jpg >There’s no any reason Japan’s Shimane Prefecture asked Ministry of Home Affairs whether to include Jukdo, not Dokdo in their jurisdition. And there's no any reason Ministry of Home Affairs of Japan to ask Dajokan to conclude about Jukdo. Historically, Japanese had never paid attention to Jukdo. Claiming Ministry of Home Affairs of Japan and Meiji Government’s highest authority Dajokan said Japan has nothing to do with Jukdo is the most ridiculous thing in Japanese Takeshima logic. The following link is how Jukdo looks like and how close it is to Ulleongdo. . http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eCjuordJ9_4/U57kcXwwq4I/AAAAAAAAE98/8oIe7rZl3NA/s1600/2.jpg
It’s just a foolish attempt to make another island which has nothing to do with Japan in Meiji Government’s Dajokan Order Jukdo. Japanese should wake up.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
OssanAmericaJun. 21, 2014 - 02:05AM JST
Settle what? Korea has no dispute related to Dokdo to settle in ICJ. Korea is completely and effectively controlling Dokdo and the cause of the conflict is Japanese provocation based on the false claim. Korea has no legal and moral obligation to say “Yes” to Japan’s asking to go to ICJ, thus there’s nothing wrong with Korean decision not to say “Yes” to Japan’s proposal. If Japan believes ICJ is the rational thing to settle the territorial dispute, why doesn’t Japan try to settle Kuril islands and Senkaku issues in ICJ first?
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
hachikouJun. 20, 2014 - 09:47PM JST
Why don't you post some place else so that everybody can see it. Now, you can see it without log-in.
The rest of your claim about te fact Japan having waived the right of governing Dokto island in past is something that Japanese already know. We are not stupid. Waive? How could Japan waive the right of governing Dokdo which had never been governed by Japan? Please show any evidence Japan governed Dokdo before illegal incorporation of 1905? Please don’t bring Japanese fishermen’s trips to Dokdo on the way to Ulleongdo. As Tottori Han replied Dokdo didn’t belong to any province of Japan, Japanese fishermen went to Dokdo which was the foreign land. I doubt Japanese are not stupid. If they know the existence of such official documents, they should be ashamed of their government’s claim Takeshima was an inherent part of territory of Japan.
But then in 1905, Japan,Shimane prefecture acquired Dokto island again.
Have you ever read Japanese Cabinet Decision to incorporate Dokdo? Is there any mention Japan acquired Dokdo again? Do you know the full process how Japan decide to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land? If you have full knowledge on those, you can’t say Japan acquired Dokdo again.
You think Japan having stopped governing island at some period of time makes automatically this island belongs to Korean territory From when did Japan govern Dokdo? Is the Japanese fishermen’s stopover in Dokdo during 17C in your mind? Then forget about it. As Tottori Han said Dokdo was not Japanese land at that time. If Japan governed Dokdo, why did Japanese exclude Dokdo in the maps of Japan? Why did the first Japanese record on Dokdo "Onshu Shicho Goki” exclude Dokdo from Japan in 1667?
Korean claims In 17 centuriy, a korean civilian,安龍福, already recognized Dokto island. But even he had pointed out island correctly, he is just a civiian individual not representing Korean goverment at that time nor any official document asa proof of its territory.
If Dokdo was not Korean land, how could a Korean recognize Dokdo belonged to Korea? If your assertion that Japan was governing Dokdo at that time is right, why didn’t the Japanese say “No, it’s Japanese land.” when Ahn declared Dokdo was Korean land? As Tottori Han said Dokdo didn’t belong to any province of Korea, no Japanese considered Dokdo belonged to Korea then. The official document proving Dokdo was Korean land is “Annals of King Sejong” of 1454. If you want to argue about it, I’m ready for it.
In late 18 century, Korean official document shows 松島 is 干山, and they belongs to Korea. But they are NOT dokto island,nor able to show the proof that either of island is same as Dokto island. Can you explain in detail which document you are talking about?
In 1900 Korean gverment ordered to govern Ishijima,石島, but again that is not Dokto island.
If Seokdo is not Dokdo, then what is it? Uldo Governor Shim reported to the Korean central government that Dokdo belonging to his county became Japanese land in 1906. Definitely, Korea was governing Dokdo.
San fransisco treaty, it was recognized as Japanese territory. Quote below
Rusk Note has nothing to do with the final decision of SF Treaty. It was nothing but a American private support for Japanese claim which was not delivered to the other signatories of SF Treaty. John F. Dulles said “US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty.” and Van Fleet said “The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public.”
I think Korea needs to show following, if they want to claim Dokto island
You can find the answers here : http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/. How about Japan? Japan has historical evidence saying Dokdo belonged to Korea , SCAPIN 677 defined Japan to exclude Dokdo during the negotiation of Sf Treaty and SF Treaty concluded with Article 19 stating "Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities." Is it right for Japan to claim Dokdo?
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
hachikouJun. 20, 2014 - 02:27PM JST
THERE IS NO ANCIENT EXISTING KOREAN MAP SHOWING WHERE DOKDO IS LAND IS WHILE JAPANESE MAPS SHOW.
You are wrong. Korea has maps showing where Dokdo(Usando) is. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aYqXZcMrtYn1Lue1vUjBN3DPNoP303V0TOpAqmbEnU/edit
Yes, Japan has old maps depicting Dokdo because of Japanese trespassing to Korean islands for illegal fishing, however it doesn’t mean Japan was exercising sovereignty over Dokdo. Japan has no maps showing only Dokdo belonged to Japan. Instead, Japan has official documents excluding Dokdo from Japan. How many Japanese know about those documents?
Tottori Han replied Dokdo doesn’t belong to any province of Japan in 1696. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/12/matsushimapresent-takeshima-doesnt.html
Meiji Government ordered to investigate how Dokdo became Korean territoryin 1870. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/hos-takeshimaulleongdo-and.html
Meiji Government ordered to remember Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo(Takeshima) in 1877. http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/01/japan-has-nothing-to-do-with-ulleongdo.html
In spite of those historical evidence, Japan says Takeshima is an inherent part of territory of Japan. This is really crazy.
-9 ( +3 / -12 )
OssanAmericaMar. 06, 2014 - 11:12PM JST
Why do some Japanese people bring up ICJ card in the middle of debating on Dokdo issue? Is it their way of refuting the arguments not in favor of Japan? Korea has no legal obligation to say “Yes” to Japan’s asking to go to ICJ, thus there’s nothing wrong with Korean decision not to say “Yes” to Japan’s proposal. Korea has no reason to go to the court to ask judge if Dokdo is Korean land or not because it’s Korean land. If Japan thinks using ICJ is the solution for territorial conflict, why doesn’t Japan bring Senkaku Islands to ICJ? Korea doesn’t go to ICJ because Korea knows exactly why Dokdo is Korea land, but Japan keeps saying to go to ICJ without knowing why Dokdo is Japanese land. There will be no day for Korea and Japan to meet in the court with Dokdo issue, thus it wouldn’t be a bad thing at all if Japanese learn from Koreans why Dokdo is not Japanese land.
CH3CHOMar. 07, 2014 - 01:32PM JST
Where in SCAPIN 677 does it say Takeshima belongs to Korea? SCAPIN 677 was about "governmental and administrative authority" (article 1), and was not about sovereignty (article 6).
It’s nonsense to say SCAPIN 677 wasn’t related to sovereignty. Cease of exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over Dokdo which was described as one of the areas outside of Japan means Japan didn’t have sovereignty over Dokdo. How about the early U.S. drafts of SF Treaty? There’s no doubt early U.S. view on the Korean ownership of Dokdo was based on SCAPIN 677.
The map attached to SCAPIN 677 put Dokdo inside of Korea. If Dokdo was excluded from the definition of Japan and drawn inside of Korea, it means it’s Korean land.
Besides, there’s a document by the Allied Powers to give Dokdo to Korea, which says : “The Allied and Associated Powers agree that there shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea all rights and titles to ..... all offshore Korean islands, including .....Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).“
How can SCAPIN give Takeshima to Republic of Korea that did not exist at the time?
How about Ulleongdo? Can you say SCAP couldn’t give Ulleongdo to Korea because Republic of Korea wasn’t founded then? When Republic of Korea was founded , the U.S. Military government transferred all to
We were talking about US State Department. Again, Rusk Note was based on the wrong information misled by the Japanese government.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
CH3CHOMar. 06, 2014 - 10:32AM JST
First, I'm glad you have no objection to the fact that the Allied Powers concluded Dokdo was Korean land through SCAPIN 677 and this conclusion lasted until SF Treaty was signed.
Was there any definition about the ownership of Dokdo in the final draft of SF Treaty? Please show any evidence, if you have, that SF Treaty defined Dokdo belong to Korea or Japan. SF Treaty was supposed to decide the ownership of Dokdo, but it didn’t, which means the definition of Japan excluding Dokdo by SCAP(Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers) was the only and the last agreement on the ownership of Dokdo. How can I prove this? In the speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference on September 5th, 1951, John Foster Dulles made it clear that the San Francisco Peace Treaty with regard to Japanese territory was based on the Potsdam Declaration. According to his speech, what binds Japan with regard to territory of Japanese sovereignty is the Potsdam Surrender Terms. Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration stipulated “..the Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the Islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we shall determine…” The ‘such minor islands’ the Allied Powers determined are listed in SCAPIN 677, which definitely excluded Dokdo from Japanese land.
So you admit the last words of US State Department were that Takeshima belongs to Japan.
Did US document say “Takeshima belongs to Japan.”? No. Please don’t try to mislead. It said “They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean state.” I admit Japan annexed Korean Dokdo for imperial greed and kept it for over 36 years. Some Japanese say incorporation of Dokdo has nothing to do with Japanese annexation of Korea, but U.S. clearly viewed otherwise. Dokdo was the first victim of Imperial Japan’s colonizing Korea. When Korea became independent from Japan, Dokdo along with the Korean peninsula had to be returned to Korea because they were the lands Imperial Japan took by greed and force according to Potsdam Surrender Terms.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Posted in: China is increasingly putting pressure on foreign companies that want access to its lucrative consumer market to toe the party line on issues such as Taiwan and the Hong Kong protests, for example, and many of those foreign companies are caving into the pressure. What are your thoughts on this?